“We and our lawyers Leigh Day have worked very hard to challenge the legality of WSCC's planning permission to Cuadrilla.

“Unconventional Gas and Oil exploration is dangerous, dirty and the wrong path to take."

Ugo Hayter of Leigh Day added: “We believe this planning permission has been granted unlawfully and flies in the face of overwhelming community opposition.”

A Cuadrilla spokesman said: "We are aware of the High Court's decision to grant a judicial review concerning West Sussex County Council's decision to grant planning permission for Cuadrilla to conduct a seven-day flow-test of the well at Balcombe.

"A retired scientist who campaigns against fracking and gives evidence on drilling applications has been told he must stop claiming he is a chartered geologist.
Dr David Smythe, a former professor at the University of Glasgow, helped persuade West Sussex council last week to reject an application for exploratory shale drilling.
But the former punk bassist has been told by the Geological Society that he cannot use the title “chartered geologist” after he stopped paying his subscription in 1996.
Meanwhile, his old employer has written to him asking him to “make it clear” that his views are not those of the university or its researchers.
Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering.

“He falsely claims to be a chartered geologist. That’s fraudulent. It’s wilful untruth.
“I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the university by someone who never fails to use his university affiliation.”
Dr Smythe has given evidence on behalf of various anti-fracking campaigns, including the south downs-based Frack Free Fenhurst group and activists against a coal bed methane project in Falkirk.
He described Celtique Energie’s application to drill a test borehole at Northrup Copse near Widsborough Green as “incomplete, incompetent, and disingenuous”, claiming ground water could be contaminated if fracking was approved.
In a letter, the governing body of the University of Glasgow said: “The governing body of the University of Glasgow wrote to him saying: “Notwithstanding our support for freedom of expression, we respectfully request that you make it clear in all of your future publications and broadcast media appearances that the views which you hold and express are your own and are not necessarily representative of the views held by the university’s researchers.”
But while he admitted he should not have claimed the ‘chartered geologist’ title, Dr Smythe said it was a “trivial matter” because he had formerly been one before ending his subscription to the Society in 1996.
He claimed that his severance agreement with the University gave him the “perpetual right” to call himself emeritus professor and that he had never suggested it shared his views.
He also pointed out that Prof Younger is a director of the Newcastle-based coal gas drilling company Five-Quarter Energy, and therefore had a vested interest in unconventional sources of fossil fuels. The company says its ‘deep gas winning’ technology – which involves injecting oxygen and steam into undersea deposits – is distinct from, and safer than, fracking.
Dr Smyth said: “A lot of British academics have in effect been bought off by the oil industry. They depend on grants from that industry so they dare not speak out critically.”
“I write reports for public inquiries to a very high standard because my aim is that I’m providing all the evidence if any such inquiry decision were to go to judicial review.”
The Geological Society maintains that chartered geologists must show “continuous professional development” beyond merely paying their fees.

An interesting article from today's on-line Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/earth/energy/
fracking/11005179/Sc
ientist-who-gave-evi
dence-against-fracki
ng-site-accused-of-c
laiming-false-qualif
ications.html
"A retired scientist who campaigns against fracking and gives evidence on drilling applications has been told he must stop claiming he is a chartered geologist.
Dr David Smythe, a former professor at the University of Glasgow, helped persuade West Sussex council last week to reject an application for exploratory shale drilling.
But the former punk bassist has been told by the Geological Society that he cannot use the title “chartered geologist” after he stopped paying his subscription in 1996.
Meanwhile, his old employer has written to him asking him to “make it clear” that his views are not those of the university or its researchers.
Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on [shale gas] in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering.
“He falsely claims to be a chartered geologist. That’s fraudulent. It’s wilful untruth.
“I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the university by someone who never fails to use his university affiliation.”
Dr Smythe has given evidence on behalf of various anti-fracking campaigns, including the south downs-based Frack Free Fenhurst group and activists against a coal bed methane project in Falkirk.
He described Celtique Energie’s application to drill a test borehole at Northrup Copse near Widsborough Green as “incomplete, incompetent, and disingenuous”, claiming ground water could be contaminated if fracking was approved.
In a letter, the governing body of the University of Glasgow said: “The governing body of the University of Glasgow wrote to him saying: “Notwithstanding our support for freedom of expression, we respectfully request that you make it clear in all of your future publications and broadcast media appearances that the views which you hold and express are your own and are not necessarily representative of the views held by the university’s researchers.”
But while he admitted he should not have claimed the ‘chartered geologist’ title, Dr Smythe said it was a “trivial matter” because he had formerly been one before ending his subscription to the Society in 1996.
He claimed that his severance agreement with the University gave him the “perpetual right” to call himself emeritus professor and that he had never suggested it shared his views.
He also pointed out that Prof Younger is a director of the Newcastle-based coal gas drilling company Five-Quarter Energy, and therefore had a vested interest in unconventional sources of fossil fuels. The company says its ‘deep gas winning’ technology – which involves injecting oxygen and steam into undersea deposits – is distinct from, and safer than, fracking.
Dr Smyth said: “A lot of British academics have in effect been bought off by the oil industry. They depend on grants from that industry so they dare not speak out critically.”
“I write reports [on fracking] for public inquiries to a very high standard because my aim is that I’m providing all the evidence if any such inquiry decision were to go to judicial review.”
The Geological Society maintains that chartered geologists must show “continuous professional development” beyond merely paying their fees.Plantpot

So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.HJarrs

It will be interesting to see how much misinformation that FFBRA present to the judicial review in an attempt to protect the values of their NIMBY mansions.

This, of course, will be based upon the qualitative bad-science that they use to justify their claims of the risk to public health, the poisoning of water supplies and the tremors that fracking will cause - all based upon FUD spread by the likes of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Green Party.

It will be interesting to see how much misinformation that FFBRA present to the judicial review in an attempt to protect the values of their NIMBY mansions.
This, of course, will be based upon the qualitative bad-science that they use to justify their claims of the risk to public health, the poisoning of water supplies and the tremors that fracking will cause - all based upon FUD spread by the likes of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Green Party.G Wiley

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.

If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.
If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.G Wiley

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.

If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.

Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or
g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.

Also, I keep "banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.

Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?

[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.
If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or
g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.
Also, I keep "banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.
Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?HJarrs

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.

If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.

Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or

g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.

Also, I keep &quot;banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.

Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?

This is a good report and I'm a long term cat supporter. They provide pragmatic views on ways forward

However this is a vision for the future and not a now. At least 10, more likely 20-30 years away. We should put pressure on this as a direction - but at a reasonable cost both in monetary terms and environmental

However if zerocarbon is the final point what is the road to it? We currently import fossil fuels, including coal. This is a much higher polluter than gas. There is also the issue of supply continuity. So we could use fracked gas as a stepping stone (with care that it doesn't become the norm) as it is better than we have now (environmentally and economically). With good levels of regulation and inspection.

Yes, fracking is not ideal, but it is better than coal and fossil imports. So why be against something which is a step in the right direction?

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.
If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or
g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.
Also, I keep "banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.
Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?[/p][/quote]This is a good report and I'm a long term cat supporter. They provide pragmatic views on ways forward
However this is a vision for the future and not a now. At least 10, more likely 20-30 years away. We should put pressure on this as a direction - but at a reasonable cost both in monetary terms and environmental
However if zerocarbon is the final point what is the road to it? We currently import fossil fuels, including coal. This is a much higher polluter than gas. There is also the issue of supply continuity. So we could use fracked gas as a stepping stone (with care that it doesn't become the norm) as it is better than we have now (environmentally and economically). With good levels of regulation and inspection.
Yes, fracking is not ideal, but it is better than coal and fossil imports. So why be against something which is a step in the right direction?NickBtn

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

"Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering."

Even the IPCC see fracking as part of the answer. Under other circumstances you would be quoting the IPCC 'til the cows come home - but in this case the science doesn't suit you.

Of course, musch of the anti-fracking argument in Southern England isn't actually about fracking is it?

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]"Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering."
Even the IPCC see fracking as part of the answer. Under other circumstances you would be quoting the IPCC 'til the cows come home - but in this case the science doesn't suit you.
Of course, musch of the anti-fracking argument in Southern England isn't actually about fracking is it?Plantpot

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.

If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.

Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or

g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.

Also, I keep &quot;banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.

Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?

This is a good report and I'm a long term cat supporter. They provide pragmatic views on ways forward

However this is a vision for the future and not a now. At least 10, more likely 20-30 years away. We should put pressure on this as a direction - but at a reasonable cost both in monetary terms and environmental

However if zerocarbon is the final point what is the road to it? We currently import fossil fuels, including coal. This is a much higher polluter than gas. There is also the issue of supply continuity. So we could use fracked gas as a stepping stone (with care that it doesn't become the norm) as it is better than we have now (environmentally and economically). With good levels of regulation and inspection.

Yes, fracking is not ideal, but it is better than coal and fossil imports. So why be against something which is a step in the right direction?

I am afraid that oil companies are not investing huge sums of money just to see the pumps turned off in a few years time. Nor is there a plan to substitute coal for gas and anyway, there is little gas under Sussex apparently.

But if you read ZCB, then it isn't for some time in the distant future, it is for now. There is great untapped biogas potential and gas produced from renewables, there is no need to develop yet more sources of natural gas.

[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - just the usual sound-bites from you on why we should leave fossil reserves in the ground, but unfortunately this will not be what the judicial review covers. The comments from FFBRA are all related to why fracking, or oil extraction, should not take place in Balcombe only.
If you must keep 'banging the drum' about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, please can you propose a realistic, economical, alternative and then get it agreed by more than a small group of naïve eco-activist ideologists.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the opportunity to point people in the direction of zerocarbonbritain.or
g. They have a workable method of reducing emissions and with some ideas for funding (free downloadable report). So it is clearly possible if we want to do it.
Also, I keep "banging the drum" regarding stranded assets, which frackable reserves are. Given that we already have 3 times more known conventional fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are not to limit ourselves to "only" a 2 degree rise in global temperatures (and that is a fair gamble), there is little point spending £600 billion a year developing yet more reserves. These unusable reserves prop up the value of fossil fuel corporations, it is a carbon bubble (there's a sound bite for you Patchy) with dire consequences for the global economy when popped.
Perhaps you can in return propose a realistic, economical future based upon increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels?[/p][/quote]This is a good report and I'm a long term cat supporter. They provide pragmatic views on ways forward
However this is a vision for the future and not a now. At least 10, more likely 20-30 years away. We should put pressure on this as a direction - but at a reasonable cost both in monetary terms and environmental
However if zerocarbon is the final point what is the road to it? We currently import fossil fuels, including coal. This is a much higher polluter than gas. There is also the issue of supply continuity. So we could use fracked gas as a stepping stone (with care that it doesn't become the norm) as it is better than we have now (environmentally and economically). With good levels of regulation and inspection.
Yes, fracking is not ideal, but it is better than coal and fossil imports. So why be against something which is a step in the right direction?[/p][/quote]I am afraid that oil companies are not investing huge sums of money just to see the pumps turned off in a few years time. Nor is there a plan to substitute coal for gas and anyway, there is little gas under Sussex apparently.
But if you read ZCB, then it isn't for some time in the distant future, it is for now. There is great untapped biogas potential and gas produced from renewables, there is no need to develop yet more sources of natural gas.HJarrs

HJarrs wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.

&quot;Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering."

Even the IPCC see fracking as part of the answer. Under other circumstances you would be quoting the IPCC 'til the cows come home - but in this case the science doesn't suit you.

Of course, musch of the anti-fracking argument in Southern England isn't actually about fracking is it?

The IPCC report is quite correct that Natural gas could be a bridge fuel. I have no problem with this conceptually and the world already has sufficient reserves to meet this without fracking. However, you have to have a strategy to reduce emissions using cracked gas and the point is that these is not one.

You will have to post up the IPCC's extolling fracking as part of the answer to climate change, I have clearly missed that bit when reading through the report.

[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
So Plantpot, your point is what? Some bloke didn't pay his fees and another bloke complaining about his views is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
Even if fracking can be carried out safely (and I worry about the Tory's obsession with deregulation, which is reducing standards across the board) it does not alter the fact that we should be leaving newly found reserves of fossil fuel in the ground. We do not need to develop them, particularly not oil, as is likely from Sussex.[/p][/quote]"Prof Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow, told the Times: “He has published nothing on in any proper scientific forum — no doubt because he knows he would never get past peer review with his pseudo- scientific scaremongering."
Even the IPCC see fracking as part of the answer. Under other circumstances you would be quoting the IPCC 'til the cows come home - but in this case the science doesn't suit you.
Of course, musch of the anti-fracking argument in Southern England isn't actually about fracking is it?[/p][/quote]The IPCC report is quite correct that Natural gas could be a bridge fuel. I have no problem with this conceptually and the world already has sufficient reserves to meet this without fracking. However, you have to have a strategy to reduce emissions using cracked gas and the point is that these is not one.
You will have to post up the IPCC's extolling fracking as part of the answer to climate change, I have clearly missed that bit when reading through the report.HJarrs

SHALE gas could help beat global climate change, according to a new UN study that warned greenhouse gas emissions have risen to unprecedented levels.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that global mean temperatures would increase by three to five degrees by the end of the century unless there was a significant overhaul of energy policy.

“Climate policies in line with the two degrees celsius goal need to aim for substantial emission reductions,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC report. “There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.”

The report said that the share of energy from low-carbon sources, including wind and nuclear, would have to be three or four times larger by 2050, to help bring down global emissions to about half of what they are today.

“Greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants,” said the report.

Edenhofer spoke in particular about shale gas, which he said could be “very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.

SHALE gas could help beat global climate change, according to a new UN study that warned greenhouse gas emissions have risen to unprecedented levels.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that global mean temperatures would increase by three to five degrees by the end of the century unless there was a significant overhaul of energy policy.
“Climate policies in line with the two degrees celsius goal need to aim for substantial emission reductions,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC report. “There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.”
The report said that the share of energy from low-carbon sources, including wind and nuclear, would have to be three or four times larger by 2050, to help bring down global emissions to about half of what they are today.
“Greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants,” said the report.
Edenhofer spoke in particular about shale gas, which he said could be “very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.DeanLucas

@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.

But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.

You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.

IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.

Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?

For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.

@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.
But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.
You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.
IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.
Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?
For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.G Wiley

G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.

But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.

You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.

IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.

Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?

For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.

I note that the MP from Brighton Pavilion also has supported ZCB.

Unfortunately, climate change is not fashionable in the media, so it is difficult to raise the profile of anything dealing with the issue, such as ZCB, in a meaningful way. However a quick web search shows FOE and Greenpeace supporting and publicising ZCB.

ZCB is not the last word on the subject, there are other proposed strategies that meet the same ends, but it demonstrates that a sensible transition to a fossil fuel free future in one generation is possible. Difficult maybe, but the stakes are extremely high.

Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.

[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote:
@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.
But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.
You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.
IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.
Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?
For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.[/p][/quote]I note that the MP from Brighton Pavilion also has supported ZCB.
Unfortunately, climate change is not fashionable in the media, so it is difficult to raise the profile of anything dealing with the issue, such as ZCB, in a meaningful way. However a quick web search shows FOE and Greenpeace supporting and publicising ZCB.
ZCB is not the last word on the subject, there are other proposed strategies that meet the same ends, but it demonstrates that a sensible transition to a fossil fuel free future in one generation is possible. Difficult maybe, but the stakes are extremely high.
Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.HJarrs

G Wiley wrote:
@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.

But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.

You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.

IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.

Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?

For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.

I note that the MP from Brighton Pavilion also has supported ZCB.

Unfortunately, climate change is not fashionable in the media, so it is difficult to raise the profile of anything dealing with the issue, such as ZCB, in a meaningful way. However a quick web search shows FOE and Greenpeace supporting and publicising ZCB.

ZCB is not the last word on the subject, there are other proposed strategies that meet the same ends, but it demonstrates that a sensible transition to a fossil fuel free future in one generation is possible. Difficult maybe, but the stakes are extremely high.

Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.

Is this the same Greenpeace that has just lost £3m speculating on the currency markets? And whose FD commutes by plane from Luxembourg to Amsterdam because he wants to spend more time with his young family?

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote:
@HJarrs - yes - your personal view on whether fracking is really necessary and what you think we should do is all very interesting, but this has nothing to do with the subject of this article 'Residents association given permission to challenge council over fracking permission'.
But anyway, if you really think your comments will actually make anyone that is involved in planning and decision making change their plans then you are sadly misguided - perhaps you would do better to get a sandwich-board and walk around Churchill Square on a Saturday morning - a bit like Eggy in Count Arthur Strong.
You still seem convinced that the way to get you message across is to encourage people to read voluminous reports and web sites - and then insult them if they can't be bothered or if they come up with a differing view.
IMHO, what you need to do is summarise the messages and get buy-in from your green leaders and associated organisations so that they also 'sing from the same hymn sheet'. Greenpeace now seems focussed on the effect on house prices - FOE on the effect on parks - and heaven knows what the official green party view is.
Perhaps then you can get other groups, such as the UN, to agree your policies and then I will take some real notice of what you think is needed and especially why?
For instance - do we actually need ZCB? You keep 'banging the drum' but I've seen nothing about this from any other source, and you seem to have provided no justification that convinces me of why we actually need to follow it.[/p][/quote]I note that the MP from Brighton Pavilion also has supported ZCB.
Unfortunately, climate change is not fashionable in the media, so it is difficult to raise the profile of anything dealing with the issue, such as ZCB, in a meaningful way. However a quick web search shows FOE and Greenpeace supporting and publicising ZCB.
ZCB is not the last word on the subject, there are other proposed strategies that meet the same ends, but it demonstrates that a sensible transition to a fossil fuel free future in one generation is possible. Difficult maybe, but the stakes are extremely high.
Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.[/p][/quote]Is this the same Greenpeace that has just lost £3m speculating on the currency markets? And whose FD commutes by plane from Luxembourg to Amsterdam because he wants to spend more time with his young family?Plantpot

@HJarrs - 'Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.'.

You definitely are a bit slow on the uptake!

No - you won't convince me of anything - not whilst you blindly support the naïve ideological incompetent greens with your sycophantic comments and attacks on anyone who disagrees with such terms as 'moanaraty'.

IMHO, most of the time your 'facts' are just 'views' (usually based around anti-capitalist doctrines), and I just can't be bothered anymore to waste my time reading the various reports and/or comments by the various fringes of the eco-activist movement that you reference which always seem to turn out to be scientifically inaccurate or just plain loony.

I will, though, consider it my duty to the citizens of this city to continue to highlight, and counter, the rubbish that you and the rest of the assorted gormless activists (AKA the Green Party) spout.

Roll on May 2015 (only 9 months away!) when we will definitely be rid of Cycle Lane Davey and the Charmless Kitcat-duo and hopefully Feminist Homeopathic Lucas will have gone as well.

@HJarrs - 'Let's be honest Patchy, I will never be able to provide anything that convinces you will I.'.
You definitely are a bit slow on the uptake!
No - you won't convince me of anything - not whilst you blindly support the naïve ideological incompetent greens with your sycophantic comments and attacks on anyone who disagrees with such terms as 'moanaraty'.
IMHO, most of the time your 'facts' are just 'views' (usually based around anti-capitalist doctrines), and I just can't be bothered anymore to waste my time reading the various reports and/or comments by the various fringes of the eco-activist movement that you reference which always seem to turn out to be scientifically inaccurate or just plain loony.
I will, though, consider it my duty to the citizens of this city to continue to highlight, and counter, the rubbish that you and the rest of the assorted gormless activists (AKA the Green Party) spout.
Roll on May 2015 (only 9 months away!) when we will definitely be rid of Cycle Lane Davey and the Charmless Kitcat-duo and hopefully Feminist Homeopathic Lucas will have gone as well.G Wiley